U. S. Flag Counter

International Flag Counter

Posts Tagged ‘abuse of power’

.. where in the hell do these ObamaCraps think that they get the ” controlling legal authority ” for doing something like this ? ..

.. our government is only authorized to collect racial statistics in certain areas for certain reasons . Those reasons are clearly stated , and are as a result of past patterns of conduct by other entities . However , that information is authorized to be collected for very specific and legally authorized reasons . Not for anything else …

…. now the ObamaCraps really plan on going crazy . They are acting to grossly misuse and abuse the powers and duties of these various agencies , taking them in directions that they have no legal reason or justification for doing so . They also are acting to collect , collate , analyze , and publish this information , even though the government is not authorized to do this . Why , for God ‘ s Sake , Why ?

.. to empower the legal radicals among the community activists [read — communist agitators] among POTUS ‘ S support base . This stuff can be reversed , but it will not be easy > With many ObamaCrap judges in the system polluting the works , it will taketime to clear up all of this mess …

.. gee , I know that POTUS has a ” hard on ” to take away people ‘ s guns . He is not totally stupid . The DemoCraps do not control Congress . In particular , the Dems have little to no prospect for controlling either House of Congress at any time in the near future ..

.. so why do this ? …

.. he wants to show people that he is actually doing something . He knows that a GOP Congress will not go for this . So , why ? …

.. he just may well be trying to provoke Congress into an overreaction . What he may end up getting , sooner or later , is the whole of the People of the United States rising up against this Dictator – in – waiting and demand Congress take action to get him out of there …

.. according to the terms of the agreement [and the Corker – Cardin bill] , the bill must be voted on by September 17th ..

.. there are several sources that indicate that the entire agreement [as it stands] has NOT been presented to the U.S. Congress . How do we know ? Congressman Pompeo and one of his senate colleagues [I am not sure who] were inadvertanly briefed by the IAEA and the US in Switzerland during the final negotiations . Also , there were classified briefings of members of Congress . Those briefings indicate that there are side deals , the existence of which has not been publically disclosed . So we know the truth …

That review period was supposed to take 60 days and is triggered the day the president submits the agreement to Congress. However, because the president failed to submit the agreement in full, as the law requires, the 60-day clock has not started, and the president remains unable lawfully to waive or lift statutory Iran-related sanctions. Indeed, since the act also provides for the transmittal of the agreement to Congress between July 10 and Sept. 7, the president’s ability to waive statutory sanctions will remain frozen in perpetuity if Congress does not receive the full agreement Monday .

Congress must now confront the grave issues of constitutional law prompted by the president’s failure to comply with his obligations under the act. This is not the first time this administration has disregarded clear statutory requirements, encroaching in the process upon Congress’s legislative and budgetary prerogatives. The fact that this has happened again in the context of a national security agreement vital to the United States and its allies makes the situation all the more serious.

For Congress to vote on the merits of the agreement without the opportunity to review all of its aspects would both effectively sanction the president’s unconstitutional conduct and be a major policy mistake. Instead, both houses should vote to register their view that the president has not complied with his obligations under the act by not providing Congress with a copy of an agreement between the IAEA and Iran, and that, as a result, the president remains unable to lift statutory sanctions against Iran. Then, if the president ignores this legal limit on his authority, Congress can and should take its case to court.

.. don’t vote on the agreement . Vote on a resolution that demands that the entire agreement be disclosed publically . Also , said resolution should state that the Corker – Cardin bill is not in effect , due to the failure of the ObamaCraps to present it to Congress . Let the DemoCraps filibuster that …

.. now F.E.M.A. wants to take advantage of the states . They want to force them to tackle ” climate change ” planning in order to get FEMA disaster preparedness $$ . Yes , it is that bad …

.. I most strongly doubt that FEMA has the statutory authority to do this . Like other ObamaCrap stunts , they think that there is ” no controlling legal authority . ” Well , there is , and it is called the law ….

.. follow the law , guys and gals , or , once again you are going to get you butts sued off . Hopefully , one of these days , these idiots are going to learn their lesson …

.. but on what ? guns . Specifically , gun sales . Normally , this is dealt with by the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , and Firearms , and with the Federal Firearms License , or F.F.L. . But it is the definition of gun sales that would change ..

.. Kessler really nailed him on it . Kessler noted that their actions were a part of established law , while Obama ‘ s acts were a part of something made – up out of wholecloth and god knows what else …

.. also , the #s that were used by , in particular , Bush 41 , were widly exaggerated , and never followed up upon . When they were , they were far less than anyone had expected …

.. also , Congress stated its position that dealing with Immigration and immigration law is its prerogative , and not the Executive ‘ s . As a result , in the early 1990s , Congress created the Temporary Protected Status ….

.. this T.P.S. is what His Lordship [Obama] is relying upon to create his supposed acts in his E.O.s …

.. Ben Watson is a fine NFL player , and evidently is a fine and decent family man …

.. also , I am a fan of his . He used to play for the New England Patriots [no , not a fan of] , and then for my favorite NFL team , the Cleveland Browns . Watson has since moved on , going to the new Orleans Saints …

.. Watson must have been playing in the Monday Night Football game last Monday [11/24/2014] , when the grand jury decision broke . He wrote down some very priescient thoughts , ones that I want to quote verbatim , because they are that on target …

At some point while I was playing or preparing to play Monday Night Football, the news broke about the Ferguson Decision. After trying to figure out how I felt, I decided to write it down. Here are my thoughts:

I’M ANGRY because the stories of injustice that have been passed down for generations seem to be continuing before our very eyes.

I’M FRUSTRATED, because pop culture, music and movies glorify these types of police citizen altercations and promote an invincible attitude that continues to get young men killed in real life, away from safety movie sets and music studios.

I’M FEARFUL because in the back of my mind I know that although I’m a law abiding citizen I could still be looked upon as a “threat” to those who don’t know me. So I will continue to have to go the extra mile to earn the benefit of the doubt.

I’M EMBARRASSED because the looting, violent protests, and law breaking only confirm, and in the minds of many, validate, the stereotypes and thus the inferior treatment.

I’M SAD, because another young life was lost from his family, the racial divide has widened, a community is in shambles, accusations, insensitivity hurt and hatred are boiling over, and we may never know the truth about what happened that day.

I’M SYMPATHETIC, because I wasn’t there so I don’t know exactly what happened. Maybe Darren Wilson acted within his rights and duty as an officer of the law and killed Michael Brown in self defense like any of us would in the circumstance. Now he has to fear the backlash against himself and his loved ones when he was only doing his job. What a horrible thing to endure. OR maybe he provoked Michael and ignited the series of events that led to him eventually murdering the young man to prove a point.

I’M OFFENDED, because of the insulting comments I’ve seen that are not only insensitive but dismissive to the painful experiences of others.

I’M CONFUSED, because I don’t know why it’s so hard to obey a policeman. You will not win!!! And I don’t know why some policeman abuse their power. Power is a responsibility, not a weapon to brandish and lord over the populace.

I’M INTROSPECTIVE, because sometimes I want to take “our” side without looking at the facts in situations like these. Sometimes I feel like it’s us against them. Sometimes I’m just as prejudiced as people I point fingers at. And that’s not right. How can I look at white skin and make assumptions but not want assumptions made about me? That’s not right.

I’M HOPELESS, because I’ve lived long enough to expect things like this to continue to happen. I’m not surprised and at some point my little children are going to inherit the weight of being a minority and all that it entails.

I’M HOPEFUL, because I know that while we still have race issues in America, we enjoy a much different normal than those of our parents and grandparents. I see it in my personal relationships with teammates, friends and mentors. And it’s a beautiful thing.

I’M ENCOURAGED, because ultimately the problem is not a SKIN problem, it is a SIN problem. SIN is the reason we rebel against authority. SIN is the reason we abuse our authority. SIN is the reason we are racist, prejudiced and lie to cover for our own. SIN is the reason we riot, loot and burn.

BUT I’M ENCOURAGED because God has provided a solution for sin through the his son Jesus and with it, a transformed heart and mind. One that’s capable of looking past the outward and seeing what’s truly important in every human being. The cure for the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner tragedies is not education or exposure. It’s the Gospel. So, finally, I’M ENCOURAGED because the Gospel gives mankind hope.

.. John Chisholm is the Milwaukee County D.A. . He is also the power – mad jackhole who has been grossly abusing people ‘ s rights in the so – called ” John Doe ” abuse of power inquiry …

.. now that people are speaking out , and the case(s) are getting press attention , Chisholm is now receiving press attention , and his actions [and , his gross abuses of power] are coming under the microscope . It seems that Chisholm has , though , a prickly attitude on being criticized …

.. Chisholm is threatening to go after other people . That is absolutely incredible , considering both the Wisconsin court system and the Federral courts are cracking down on his antics …

.. John Chisholm , if you have any horse sense , shut up and shut down your antics . Also , don’t count on having the John Doe law around for very much longer . The Wisconsin legislature is likely to either greatly modify it , or just go ahead and out – and – out repeal it …

.. basically , NOW wants POTUS to effectively shred the Hobby Lobby decision , by eliminating it where it deals with federal contractors ….

.. Haven’t the NAGs remembered that the law overrules E.O.s (executive orders) , and the Constitution overrules both of them . Even if POTUS wanted to , any court worth a damn would throw his action O-U-T the door as a gross abuse of power …

.. Rove correctly juxtaposed Dubya ‘ s actions [administering the law] , as against His Lordship ‘ s (Obama ‘ s) [which are abusing the law] . Obama acts as if he is ” an emperor , ” where he is a law unto himself …

.. especially the way that people in George W. Bush ‘ s White House were tarred and feathered by the media …. even now ..

.. may God Bless Robert Novak . He was one of the best columnists that I ever have followed (ever since high school) . Unfortunately , he was taken from us much too soon , due to a brain tumor in 2009 . Novak should know . He was the columnist who originally reported the leak . He knew who was his source . He was the best , and he protected his source . You know that he would …

.. just so you know about the accurate reporting of the resolution of the leak investigation , at least where it regarded Novak , I am going to reprint in full his 2006 column outing the leaker . The leaker [Armitage] had already been outed , courtesy of a book written several months before by Michael ” Spikey ” Isikoff and David ” Lunatic ” Corn …

When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week that he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state’s interviews obscured what he really did. I want to set the record straight based on firsthand knowledge.

First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he “thought” might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear that he considered it especially suited for my column.

An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of his being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration’s war policy, and I had long opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me, improbably, into the president’s lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he, and not Karl Rove, was the leaker was devastating for the left.

A peculiar convergence had joined Armitage and me on the same historic path. During his quarter of a century in Washington, I had had no contact with Armitage before our fateful interview. I tried to see him in the first 2 1/2 years of the Bush administration, but he rebuffed me — summarily and with disdain, I thought.

Then, without explanation, in June 2003, Armitage’s office said the deputy secretary would see me. This was two weeks before Joe Wilson outed himself as author of a 2002 report for the CIA debunking Iraqi interest in buying uranium in Africa.

I sat down with Armitage in his State Department office the afternoon of July 8 with tacit rather than explicit ground rules: deep background with nothing said attributed to Armitage or even to an anonymous State Department official. Consequently, I refused to identify Armitage as my leaker until his admission was forced by “Hubris,” a new book by reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn that absolutely identified him.

Late in my hour-long interview with Armitage, I asked why the CIA had sent Wilson — who lacked intelligence experience, nuclear policy expertise or recent contact with Niger — on the African mission. He told The Post last week that his answer was: “I don’t know, but I think his wife worked out there.”

Neither of us took notes, and nobody else was present. But I recalled our conversation that week in writing a column, while Armitage reconstructed it months later for federal prosecutors. He had told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA’s Counterproliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband’s mission. As for his current implication that he never expected this to be published, he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson’s role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column — implying to me that it continued reporting Washington inside information.

Valerie Plame Wilson’s name appeared in my column July 14, 2003, but it was not until Oct. 1 that I was contacted about it by Armitage, indirectly. Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, Armitage’s close friend and political adviser, called me to say that the deputy secretary feared he had “inadvertently” (the word Armitage used in last week’s interviews) disclosed Mrs. Wilson’s identity to me in July and was considering resignation. (Duberstein’s phone call was disclosed in the Isikoff-Corn book, which used Duberstein as a source. They reported that Duberstein was responsible for arranging my unexpected interview with Armitage.)

Duberstein told me Armitage wanted to know whether he was my source. I did not reply because I was sure that Armitage knew he was the source. I believed he contacted me Oct. 1 because of news the weekend of Sept. 27-28 that the Justice Department was investigating the leak. I cannot credit Armitage’s current claim that he realized he was the source only when my Oct. 1 column revealed that the official who gave me the information was “no partisan gunslinger.”

Armitage’s silence for the next 2 1/2 years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source. When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald’s appointment on Dec. 30, 2003. Armitage’s tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive.

… LEC again …

.. I still wonder why : why Dubya did not pardon Scooter Libby , and why he did not fire Patrick Fitzgerald …. as to Libby , he was grossly mistargeted . He had no business being picked on the way that he was by the special prosecutor . Once Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was [Richard Armitage , Colin Powell ‘ s deputy at the time] , that was it . The investigation was over

… As to Fitzgerald , he grossly abused his power . He carried on with the investigation for far longer a period of time and for far broader a latitude of scope than should have been allowed . It was not the absolutely gross abuse of power that Lawrence Walsh pulled in his father ‘ s time , but it was damn close . Dubya should have shut Fitz down , effectively , by pardoning Libby , Rove , and the other parties in the probe . That would shut Fitz down without having to fire him , which I think he should have done anyway …

.. sooner or later , the ObamaCraps are going to push Congress too far ..

.. it will be a very interesting Election Night . I do not doubt , now , that the GOP will win a majority this November . The question will be how large a majority . The larger , the better . The closer that the GOP is to 67 votes in the Senate [the # of votes in an impeachment trial verdict to remove a President or any public official] , the more pressure there will be on the DemoCraps to stop this bull[bleep]…

.. basically , the Federal District Court judge [Rudolph Randa] was shut down , at least temporarily , by the 7th Federal Appeals Court . One would think that it would be a bummer , but not so . The appeals court shut down the judge ‘ s action on a technicality ..

.. the Milwaukee County DA and his flunkies in the state can still appeal the judge ‘ s order to the Appeals Court , but they will need grounds . They will need grounds that they will have a strong likelihood that they will prevail on the arguments , which is a tall order …

.. there really has been next to no notice about the effect on the family on the regulatory taking of the tortoise . Even with that , there has been little to no reference as to whether the desert tortoise is really ” endangered …. “

.. unless a massive screwup occurs , the GOP will control both Houses of Congress after the November elections …

.. [-] the House — I believe that the GOP will add seats . How many ? I am not sure on that one , yet . it is too early to tell . My best guess is around 8 to 10 to 12 seats . That would not be too bad , because that would boost the GOP majority to about 245 seats . A healthy and manageable majority , no doubt …

.. could it be more , yes . but I doubt it …

.. [-] the Senate — at the rate things are going , the GOP is going to have a healthy majority , of al least 52 seats . I am thinking that it could be much more . If this election is a wave , somewhat like 2010 , it will be the Senate races that are affected the most , and give the GOP pickups that no one would expect , like Oregon (which I expect) and Minnesota (which I do not)…

.. Obama is going to grant ” amnesty ” by executive action after the election before the new congress takes office . Yes , it does matter . I will tell you why …

.. he can legally relieve illegals of the criminal offense , being in the country illegally . POTUS can grant pardons , clemency , and reprieves . It is in the U.S. Constitution , and there is nothing that anyone can do about it …

.. however , he cannot administratively change the law to grant those illegals citizenship . He may want to , and may even try to do so . I do not believe that he has the legal authority to change the immigration law . No president does . It is covered by separation of powers , among other things . He may well still try , though . That is where the change in Congress matters …

.. if and when he does , he will trigger impeachment proceedings . He will also just about cook the DemoCraps ‘ goose in 2016 . Back to that some other time . The House Judiciary Committee can conduct an impeachment inquiry during the current congress during the lame duck session . Committee proceedings can continue . Especially if he does a jackhole stunt like this . I half expect him to try to do so , especially now .

.. In addition , it would go to the D.C. Appeals Court , which , unfortunately , has been stacked with his cronies . However , the U.S. Supreme Court has not . The Conservatives would not stand for this abuse of power . Neither would Anthony Kennedy . Neither I believe would Steven Breyer . I doubt the liberals would , either , but given the polarization , who knows . Obama ‘ s admin action will be struck down …

.. Rememer , he can relieve illegals of the criminal act . He can also stop deportations . That one would create a huge uproar , all by itself . However , he cannot change immigration law , all by himself , as much as he would like to do so . Even if he would try , his act would be struck down at lightening speed by the courts . They would not dilly – dally around , taking months . They would take maybe a few weeks , at most …

.. this is where the I.G.’ s report [J. Russell George] for the I.R.S @ the Treasury Department becomes critically important . Also , the actions , or lack thereof , in the civil lawsuits , in particular , the ones that are represented by the American Center for Law and Justice [the A.C.L.J.] …

.. when A.G. Holder kept silent , and did nothing , even as much as people bellyached , no one could do anything . Once he actually made a determination NOT to appoint a special counsel , then people could move and take action …

.. now , people can sue , either in D.C. in District Court , or directly in the Court of Appeals (it is one of the rare times that a legal case can begin directly there , instead of down lower) . One can also take action in the District Court where the A.C.L.J. has its legal cases situated …

.. people should sue , and demand what is known as a ” writ of mandamus . ” Mandamus means , literally , I demand , and is something that can not be requested all that often . When the clear evidence requires that a government official has a clear ministerial duty to do something that the evidence dictates (and refuses to do so) , then a citizen can act and request a mandamus order from a federal judge .

.. I believe that now is that time . It is abundantly clear that Eric Holder and his cronies are conspiring to obstruct justice , and the deputy Treasury I.G. for the I.R.S. (George , again) lays out the basics of the criminal case . The law calls for a special counsel to be appointed in such a case , and Holder has refused to do so . Well , the evidence says yes , and his conduct at the Department of Injustice is criminal …

.. my home state , Ohio , does not recognize so – called ” gay ” marriage .

.. the federales are ordering states where ObamaCrapCare is involved to in effect , ” recognize ” same – sex couples ..

.. they do not have that right , under colour or force of law .

.. it is not constitutional , whether it be the 5th Amendment or 14th Amendment . Those amendments involve individual rights , not collective rights . They do not involve the rights of groups , even with the use of any level of judicial scrutiny …

.. she is the Michigan resident and cancer patient who is dealing with the crippling effects of ObamaCrapCare on her health insurance policy , her overall health care , and

.. she became famous as the result of issue ads run by Americans for Prosperity / Michigan . They intervened in the open seat US Senate race in Michigan , the one being vacated by Carl Levin . She also became famous because the subject of the issue ad , Representative Gary Peters [D-Mi] has attacked her with a cheap shot .

.. Peters wants to have control of his campaign message . Who wouldn’t . In this day and age , you have to deal with interest groups , and even private individuals running political ads . Technically , anyone with money can do so . Peters is , however , playing foul , by abusing his office .

.. Peters ‘ Senate campaign has been going around to various TV stations that broadcast into Michigan . That would include , in theory , Ohio , Northern Indiana , and Chicagoland , in addition to Michigan proper . The campaign has been grossly abusing the powers of his office by threatening their broadcast licences , among other offences , for airing the A.F.P. ads . Vulgar , huh ?

.. Yea , it is . She is fighting back , thankfully . This morning [Monday 02/24/2014] , she appeared on ” Fox and Friends ” for an interview . I heartily recommend it …

.. the military and the Department of Justice (operating in a normal fashion , obviously not now) understands this . What POTUS did would be called ” unlawful command influence … ” . In the uniformed military , civilian or uniformed , enlisted or officer , it is a crime . POTUS has constitutional immunity , while in office . However , it does not rule out criminal pursuit of offences , such as this one , once he is out of office . Barack H. Obama has a great deal to answer for , believe you me …

.. the blogpost also contains the O Reilly pre SuperBowl interview . So , please read the rest of this , if you have not seen Bill ‘ s interview …

Obama Undermines DOJ Probe of IRS Targeting

by Keith Koffler on February 3, 2014, 12:19 pm

Welcome to White House Dossier!
You may subscribe at no cost by entering your email address here. You’ll receive the free OBAMAGRAM newsletter and updates on breaking White House news. You won’t get spammed, and your email address will never be shared. Enjoy the website!

In what can only be described as rank corruption itself, President Obama said Sunday there’s not a “smidgeon” of corruption involved in the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups before the 2012 election. Obama asserted this even as an investigation – led by an Obama donor – is continuing into the targeting.

The president spoke during a live interview with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News broadcast just before the Super Bowl

I can’t think of a better example of Chicagoland politics than to signal to your investigators how the probe is supposed to turn out. Now, Justice Department officials have their marching orders. And anyone who uncovers a “smidgeon” of corruption will have to worry about making the boss look like a liar or a fool, not to mention worrying about their employment status.

The interview, which I run for you below, is well worth watching. I give Obama some credit for submitting to an interview with O’Reilly, who – unlike any other reporter who questions Obama – asks only tough, direct questions that attempt to hold Obama accountable, and who tries to cut off Obama’s attempts to run out the clock with verbose answers containing no information.

The O’Reilly interview had several other quite newsworthy moments:

Obama ducked the question about whether Secretary of Defense Panetta told him the night of the Benghazi assault that it was a terrorist attack. Panetta had reportedly been informed by the general then heading the U.S. African command that this was a terrorist attack, not a demonstration.

Obama showed he has no good reason for not firing HHS Secretary Sebelius.

Obama repeatedly attacked Fox News. A president should not be assailing specific news outlets. It chills free speech and signals to his aides and the vast federal bureaucracy that the outlet if fair game.

Obama says the Healthcare.gov website is “fixed.” That’s not even remotely true. The site remains insecure; the system for sending payments to insurance companies is still under construction; it’s still not clear who has paid for their plans; and as the Washington Post reported today, if you make a mistake signing up, you’re screwed.

I sometimes think O’Reilly is a blowhard. But sometimes it takes someone like this to break through the stonewall.

Before I covered the White House, ABC’s Sam Donaldson used to annoy me too. I thought he was pompous and unnecessarily disrespectful to Ronald Reagan.

When I started working with Donaldson during Clinton’s last years, I watched how relentless he was and realized that he hadn’t just been a liberal reporter out to get Reagan. Rather, Donaldson was kind of a maniac out to get answers. And more often than others, he got them.

.. this one was done a day before the SOTU , but is just as applicable . POTUS ‘ abuse and misuse of executive orders is waaaay beyond the pale .

.. By the by , it is not the number of them , it is the content of them and their potential and likely illegality . Most any President will test the bounds of the powers of their office , but will know when and where to stop . Nixon obviously did not . Obama is making good ol ‘ Tricky Dick look like a choirboy by comparison , given his actions .

.. Obama has to think and probably is thinking that because he has Dingy Harry [Reid] to cover his “six” , he has nothing to worry about . As long as Dingy Harry is the majority leader of the Senate , maybe … when (not if) Reid goes , then POTUS is in even deeper doo – doo . It will set up the GOP with as many as 53 to 54 votes in the Senate , and the leaning votes of at least 5 other Dems [Nelson,Manchin,Feinstein,King(i),Warner] . That puts the GOP within range of conviction and removal range … Uh Oh !!

.. Tom Delay got the relief that he was seeking from Texas . The 3rd Circuit Texas Court of Appeals body – slammed the prosecution of Delay in its opinion …

LEC here — Appeals Courts and Supreme Courts generally do not enter in and order acquitals . When they do so , it is a very , very big thing …

.. Their usual modus operandi is to overturn the conviction . The basis that they use to overturn the conviction is then evaluated

Tom Delay (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

by the relevent prosecutor ‘ s office . It is that office that then makes the decision on whether or not to retry an offender . When a court takes that decision away , it means to me that the prosecutor and his or her office has really , really screwed up . The court has to act to step in to guarantee that the prosecutor does not go off on another fishing expedition in a criminal prosecution …

For the second time in the last few years, a high-profile corruption prosecution against a Republican member of Congress has collapsed. This time, it’s Tom DeLay that gets to celebrate, as an appeals court not only overturned his conviction but ordered an acquittal:

A Texas appeals court has overturned the money laundering conviction of former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

The Texas 3rd Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 ruling on Thursday that DeLay had been acquitted. DeLay was sentenced to three years in prison, but his sentence was on hold while his case made its way through the appellate process. …

In Thursday’s tom-delay-appeal-doc, the judges wrote “we reverse the judgments of the trial court and render judgments of acquittal.”

Unless the state appeals the ruling, this means that DeLay cannot be retried on the charges. The court could have ordered a new trial if it restrained its scope to just procedural issues. However, the court apparently believed that the prosecution simply couldn’t make a case for wrongdoing, and as a result took the relatively rare step of overturning a jury’s findings on guilt.

Their opinion makes it clear that the court had little regard for the state’s case:

Given the testimony of the corporate representatives and the undisputed facts that the corporations could lawfully make donations to TRMPAC and TRMPAC could lawfully transfer the corporate funds out of state, the State failed to prove the “applicable culpable mental states” for the donating corporations to support a finding of criminal intent by the corporations. See Ex parte Ellis, 309 S.W.3d at 90. 1

To support its position that the majority of corporate contributions violated the Election Code by not expressly designating a lawful use of their donations to TRMPAC, the State focuses on the following clause from the opinion in Ex parte Ellis: “there is no such thing as a legal undesignated corporate political contribution.” Id. at 88. We believe that the State takes this clause out of context. In that case, the court was addressing constitutional challenges to the Election Code. The clause cited by the State was made during the court’s examination of section 253.100, the section of the Election Code addressing the establishment of a general-purpose committee by a corporation and in response to a possible suggestion made by this Court. …

The State’s primary argument at trial was that the Election Code violation that generated criminal proceeds was the “agreement” between DeLay and others to the combined transfers of funds, i.e., the money swap of soft money for hard money. The State argued in its final argument: “[T]he moment that the decision was made to send the soft dollar check up to Washington D.C. with the intent that it ultimately go to candidates for elective office is the moment that this money became proceeds of criminal activity.” Relying on the use of the word “indirect” 13 in the Election and Penal Code statutes at issue, the State argues that the “agreement” to the combined transactions itself was an illegal contribution and thus the corporate funds sitting in TRMPAC’s bank account at the moment of the agreement became the proceeds of criminal activity. See Tex. Elec. Code § 251.001(2) (defining “contribution” to include “indirect transfer of money” and “agreement . . . to make a transfer”). However, the State fails to explain how the funds already in the bank account resulted from the subsequent money-swap agreement. See Tex. Penal Code § 34.01(4) (defining “proceeds” to include “funds acquired or derived directly or indirectly from, produced through, or realized through . . . an act”). Further, to support this argument, the State disregards the distinction between soft and hard money accounts as irrelevant, arguing: “The fact that the funds were not commingled is simply irrelevant in light of the explicit one-for-one exchange which was negotiated in this case.” But in the context of the campaign finance regulations, maintaining separate, segregated bank accounts for soft and hard money is recognized and accepted as legitimate.

The court also attacked the core of the case, the alleged conspiracy to violate election law, emphasis mine:

We also question the validity of the State’s “agreement” theory. It was not a crime to conspire to violate the Election Code in 2002. See Colyandro, 233 S.W.3d at 870–71, 885. And, even if it was, the evidence does not support a finding that there was an “agreement” to illegally transfer corporate money to Texas candidates. There was no evidence that TRMPAC or RNSEC treated the corporate funds as anything but what they were, corporate funds with limited uses under campaign finance law. Rather, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence showed an agreement to two legal monetary transfers: that TRMPAC transfer corporate money to RNSEC for use in other states and not in Texas in exchange for RNSEC transferring funds to Texas candidates out of a hard money account. Rather than supporting an agreement to violate the Election Code, the evidence shows that the defendants were attempting to comply with the Election Code limitations on corporate contributions.

But even if that were true, the court ruled, there was no core crime to begin with:

Finally, even if we were to conclude that the corporate donations to TRMPAC or the agreement itself to the series of money transfers violated the Election Code, the State’s charges as stated in the indictment were tied to the transfer from RNSEC to the seven Texas candidates. As stated above, the RNSEC issued the checks to the candidates from a separate, segregated account—a hard money account—which did not include corporate money.

The conclusion? DeLay didn’t commit a crime at all, and the conviction resulted from poor jury instructions:

Based on the totality of the evidence, we conclude that the evidence presented does not support a conclusion that DeLay committed the crimes that were charged. See Williams,235 S.W.3d at 750; see also United States v. Grossman, 117 F.3d 255, 261 (5th Cir. 1997) (concluding that evidence legallyinsufficient to sustain conspiracycount where evidence was legally insufficient to sustain substantive counts forming basis for object of conspiracy); United States 21v. Mackay, 33 F.3d 489, 494 (5th Cir. 1994) (“A conspiracy conviction requires proof of an agreement to commit a crime.”). The fundamental problem with the State’s case was its failure to prove proceeds of criminal activity. We sustain DeLay’s first and second points of error.

Due to our resolution of these two grounds, we do not reach DeLay’s remaining points of error. Because we conclude that the evidence was legally insufficient to support DeLay’s convictions, we reverse the judgments of the trial court and render judgments of acquittal.

Quite frankly, that deconstruction is so complete that it would be difficult to imagine the Texas Supreme Court overturning any of it — and a successful appeal would have to hope that the court overturns all of it, or at least enough to get a new trial. I’d predict that the directed verdict of acquittal will send a strong enough message to dissuade prosecutors from trying it again.

DeLay joins the late Ted Stevens as two members of Congress recently prosecuted for corruption to be later vindicated in appeals to original convictions. William Jefferson, who was prosecuted in the same time frame, lost all of his appeals and will be in prison for at least the next ten years. The man who should be under scrutiny now is Ronnie Earle, whose years-long legal grudge match against DeLay and other Texas Republicans has been thoroughly discredited by the appellate court.

.. LEC here again — I do not know what has become of Ronnie Earle . If he is smart , he should have left the state of Texas . If he has not , he should prepare to get his sorry rear end dragged into court . Except , this time , he will be in the dock . His law license will be at stake …

.. for those idiots in the media . It was not just a reversal of the conviction . There was never a crime to begin with , you morons . Read the above , and the legal opinion in the case . Delay was adjudged not guilty , so he cannot be tried again in a court of law again . Ronnie Earle can , however , for misconduct in office , among other charges , and also for violation of Delay ‘ s civil rights . It would be interesting if a U.S. Attorney would take up the case , once a complaint were filed . You can bet the U.S. Department of InJustice will not handle the case . But , they just might pressure any U.S. Atty to not handle the case . Holder and his minions are certainly capable of that …

.. David Axelrod (or , as I prefer to call him Assholerod) appeared on pMSNBC to comment on U.S. Senator Tom Coburn ‘ s own appearance earlier in the day . It was also a commentary on comments that Coburn had mad at various town hall – style events that Senator Coburn had held back in Oklahoma during the August recess . To say the least , Davey Boy was not amused .

.. [link] Here is the link for the video , and please watch it . No , I am not a fan of Assholerod . Far from it , it shows how bloody arrogant the ObamaCraps and their fellow travelers are about what they have done , and what they are trying to do . Axelrod ‘ s pique was specific to Coburn ‘ s comments about POTUS being perilously close to the borderline of “impeachable offences . ”

.. Coburn is right . Obama has , to be honest , committed several impeachable offences . One of them being the gross abuse of power . That one has occured on several occasions . There are indeed others . And there is more to come on that . That is for sure .

.. the interviewer is Virginia Thomas . She writes on a part – time basis for the Daily Caller , and does these interviews , periodically . Yes , She is that Ginny Thomas , the political activist and bride of Supreme Court Associate JusticeClarence Thomas . She is , as always , incisive and informative .

.. the following is the text from the article [h/t — theDailyCaller] ..

J. Christian Adams is a talented lawyer who worked inside Eric Holder’s Justice Department until he could take it no longer. He left in 2010 and wrote a New York Times bestselling book, “Injustice,” to expose what he saw and learned.

Today, he is practicing law, speaking out against the Justice Department, writing for PJ Media and battling his first Internal Revenue Service audit on the side. In the second of this three-part interview, Adams says he believes the institution of law is under attack like never before.

“[The law is] meant to be a leveler, and that’s what’s unique about our country, about America, is we’re the first country ever founded for the principle that every individual has individual dignity, divine inspired individual dignity, to be treated by their government as an individual, not differently than somebody whose brother is an earl,” he said. “These people in power reject at its core that principle. They believe that power is given out based on political donations, ideology, opposition to coal — name it. It’s something that you gain favor and are treated differently by your government based on who you are, and that’s so anti-American.”

Adams went on to say that Republicans and their consultants are stuck in the ’90s and not battling the left effectively.

“We’re in a different kind of world now where the left is on the march through the institutions, through the government, through the academy, and they have brass knuckles,” he said. “And they have their media outlets, and they have Media Matters, and MSNBC, and ThinkProgress and George Soros, and I can go down the list. And the right is just getting started. And they don’t have the same sorts of institutional weaponry that the left does. So it becomes very easy to deceive when your arsenal is bigger. And I think that was the problem in the last election.”

Under the Obama Justice Department, he said, “law is a tool to help those in power aid those they agree with. It is not a great leveler. It’s no longer a means to make everybody equal and to create those fences that everybody must stay within. It’s a way to punish your opponents and reward your enemies.”

Adams puts some hope in the power of the purse, if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives would just “line out” radical policies and budgets with the authority our founders gave them.

.. Good ! It seems that Texas is definitely going to fight back . Now that the tools are better there , the state of Texas should be in much better shape . I cannot predict victory , but they will have a much better chance of it .

.. It seems His Imperial Highness , Eric Holder , wants to go on the attack against the states . Any state will do . He wants to do away with several measures , not limited to , or including Voter I.D. . It may not be limited to that , I believe . Any measure related to voting integrity , or the prevention of voting fraud , such as the purging or cleaning of voter registration rolls . How the Department of InJustice intends to do it , good question ?

.. The Department of InJustice is preparing to take fresh legal action in a string of voting rights cases across the nation, U.S. officials said, part of a new attempt to blunt the impact of a Supreme Court ruling that the Obama administration has warned will imperil minority representation.

The decision to challenge state officials marks an aggressive effort to continue policing voting rights issues and follows a ruling by the court last month that invalidated a critical part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The justices threw out a part of the act that determined which states with a history of discrimination had to be granted Justice Department or court approval before making voting law changes.

.. In the coming weeks, Attorney General Holder expected to announce that the Justice Department is using other sections of the Voting Rights Act to bring lawsuits or take other legal action to prevent states from implementing certain laws, including requirements to present certain kinds of identification in order to vote. The department is also expected to try to force certain states to get approval, or “pre-clearance,” before they can change their election laws.

.. “Even as Congress considers updates to the Voting Rights Act in light of the Court’s ruling, we plan, in the meantime, to fully utilize the law’s remaining sections to subject states to pre-clearance as necessary,” Holder said in a speech Thursday morning in Philadelphia. “My colleagues and I are determined to use every tool at our disposal to stand against such discrimination wherever it is found.”

Holder announced that, in a first step, the department will support a lawsuit in Texas that was brought by a coalition of Democratic legislators and civil rights groups against the state’s redistricting plan.

it is dedicated to the subject and coverage of legal warfare , aimed @ conservatives

and libertarians

this kim strassel column caught my eye , on the web // wsj 05242013

it was a test drive of the ObamaCrap intimidation strategy in the ‘ 08 campaign

it sent a veiled warning to GOP and conservative contributors

speak out and fund , contribute large amounts , you will have trouble w. us in office will use levers of government to get back at you , send message to others

hit on ’12 GOP campaigns , hit their donor streams …

… POTOMAC WATCH May 23rd , 2013 …

Strassel: Conservatives Became Targets in 2008 The Obama campaign played a big role in

a liberal onslaught that far pre-dated Citizens United.By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL The White House insists President Obama is “outraged” by the “inappropriate” targeting and harassment of conservative groups. If true, it’s a remarkable turnaround for a man who helped pioneer those tactics.

On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.

What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, “its officers and directors,” and its “anonymous donors.” Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501 (c)(4), was committing a “knowing and willful violation” of election law, and wanted “action to enforce against criminal violations.”

AIP gave Justice a full explanation as to why it was not in violation. It said that it operated exactly as liberal groups like Naral Pro-Choice did. It noted that it had disclosed its donor, Texas businessman Harold Simmons. Mr. Bauer’s response was a second letter to Justice calling for the prosecution of Mr. Simmons. He sent a third letter on Sept. 8, again smearing the “sham” AIP’s “illegal electoral purpose.”

Also on Sept. 8, Mr. Bauer complained to the Federal Election Commission about AIP and Mr. Simmons. He demanded that AIP turn over certain tax documents to his campaign (his right under IRS law), then sent a letter to AIP further hounding it for confidential information (to which he had no legal right).

The Bauer onslaught was a big part of a new liberal strategy to thwart the rise of conservative groups. In early August 2008, the New York Times trumpeted the creation of a left-wing group (a 501(c)4) called Accountable America. Founded by Obama supporter and liberal activist Tom Mattzie, the group—as the story explained—would start by sending “warning” letters to 10,000 GOP donors, “hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions.” The letters would alert “right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.” As Mr. Mattzie told Mother Jones: “We’re going to put them at risk.”

The Bauer letters were the Obama campaign’s high-profile contribution to this effort—though earlier, in the spring of 2008, Mr. Bauer filed a complaint with the FEC against the American Leadership Project, a group backing Hillary Clinton in the primary.

“There’s going to be a reckoning here,” he had warned publicly. “It’s going to be rough—it’s going to be rough on the officers, it’s going to be rough on the employees, it’s going to be rough on the donors. . . Whether it’s at the FEC or in a broader criminal inquiry, those donors will be asked questions.” The campaign similarly attacked a group supporting John Edwards.

American Leadership head (and Democrat) Jason Kinney would rail that Mr. Bauer had gone from “credible legal authority” to “political hatchet man”—but the damage was done. As Politico reported in August 2008, Mr. Bauer’s words had “the effect of scaring [Clinton and Edwards] donors and consultants,” even if they hadn’t yet “result[ed] in any prosecution.”

As general counsel to the Obama re-election campaign, Mr. Bauer used the same tactics on pro-Romney groups. The Obama campaign targeted private citizens who had donated to Romney groups. Democratic senators demanded that the IRS investigate these organizations.

None of this proves that Mr. Obama was involved in the IRS targeting of conservative nonprofits. But it does help explain how we got an environment in which the IRS thought this was acceptable.

Related Video Editorial board member Steve Moore offers a round-up of the news this week on the IRS’s targeting conservative groups. Photo: Getty Images . . The rise of conservative organizations (to match liberal groups that had long played in politics), and their effectiveness in the 2004 election (derided broadly by liberals as “swift boating”), led to a new and organized campaign in 2008 to chill conservative donors and groups via the threat of government investigation and prosecution. The tone in any organization—a charity, a corporation, the U.S. government—is set at the top.

This history also casts light on White House claims that it was clueless about the IRS’s targeting. As Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman wrote this week: “With two winning presidential campaigns built on successful grassroots fundraising, with a former White House counsel (in 2010-11) who is one of the Democrats’ leading experts on campaign law (Bob Bauer), with former top campaign officials having been ensconced as staffers in the White House . . . it’s hard to imagine that the Obama inner circle was oblivious to the issue of what the IRS was doing in Cincinnati.” More like inconceivable.

And this history exposes the left’s hollow claim that the IRS mess rests on Citizens United. The left was targeting conservative groups and donors well before the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling on independent political expenditures by corporations.

If the country wants to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal, it must first remember the context for this abuse. That context leads to this White House. There are many other examples that one can add to Strassel’s analysis. One that I remember with particular bitterness is from September 2008, when the Democratic National Committee and several Obama-aligned organizations pressured the Jewish community to un-invite Sarah Palin from a rally against Iran at the UN.

What happened was that a group of Jewish non-profit organizations had organized the rally and invited both Gov. Palin and Sen. Hillary Clinton. Clinton initially agreed to attend, but the Obama campaign was terrified at the prospect of her sharing a stage with Palin and sending a signal that Democrat women left frustrated by Clinton’s loss might switch parties. So they pressured Clinton to withdraw–and then pressured the Jewish groups to deny Palin a platform, claiming that the rally was now “partisan.”

Jewish members of the Democratic National Committee reportedly made threats to challenge the groups’ IRS non-profit status.

J Street, which had only recently started up as an organization devoted to promoting criticism of Israel and Obama’s Middle East policy, joined in the pressure campaign, circulating a petition addressed to Jewish leader and rally organizer Malcolm Hoenlein.

When Palin was un-invited, J Street celebrated its role in that deplorable display of thuggish intimidation of free speech and assembly: “We Won!” it boasted. (So did Iran, that day.)

The Obama campaign’s tactics weren’t confined to non-profit groups. Indeed, its present practice of trying to intimidate journalists emerged at the same time. In late August 2008, the Obama campaign organized an effort to shut down a radio interview between Chicago journalist Milt Rosenberg and conservative author Stanley Kurtz, who had just done the definitive research exposing the ties between Ayers and Obama. (The campaign declined an invitation to appear on the show itself.) The producer of the show later wrote: “It’s interesting to see what lengths the Obama campaign is willing to reach to stifle dissenting voices.”

Those of us who protested the Obama campaign’s tactics at the time were ignored, as were most who noted what the Obama administration later did to the Tea Party and conservatives. Strassel adds that Bauer came back for the Obama re-election campaign in 2012 and used the same tactics against Romney donors.

“None of this proves that Mr. Obama was involved in the IRS targeting of conservative nonprofits,” she writes. “But it does help explain how we got an environment in which the IRS thought this was acceptable.”

The important point is that the Obama administration’s behavior in the Benghazi scandal (intimidating whistleblowers), the IRS scandal (targeting conservative nonprofits and donors), and the AP and Rosen scandals (hounding individual journalists and news agencies , and the AP and Rosen scandals (hounding individual journalists and news agencies) is a feature of Obama’s character and leadership, not a bug. He may know well enough to keep himself at arm’s length, to retain the façade of “plausible deniability.” But the pattern of behavior is becoming undeniable, as is Obama’s ultimate responsibility.

[Update] on Saturday evening

.. I was reviewing another relatively conservative legal blog , one that is also a part of my blogroll , called — Legal Insurrection . com . It is run by Prof . William Jacobson , a law professor at Cornell University ‘ s law school . I came across it a couple of years ago , and it was an immediate hit with me . He also touches on the Kim Strassel column in the Wall Street Journal . I trust that you will find it as informative as I do …

Kimberley Strassel makes in important point today at The Wall Street Journal, taking apart the defense that the IRS was warranted in targeting conservative groups seeking 501(c)(4) status because of the Citizens United decision. Strassel documents how people close to and involved in the Obama campaign sought to pressure the government to target conservatives years before the Citizens United decision.

The White House insists President Obama is “outraged” by the “inappropriate” targeting and harassment of conservative groups. If true, it’s a remarkable turnaround for a man who helped pioneer those tactics.

On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.

What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, “its officers and directors,” and its “anonymous donors.” Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a “knowing and willful violation” of election law, and wanted “action to enforce against criminal violations.”

AIP gave Justice a full explanation as to why it was not in violation. It said that it operated exactly as liberal groups like Naral Pro-Choice did. It noted that it had disclosed its donor, Texas businessman Harold Simmons. Mr. Bauer’s response was a second letter to Justice calling for the prosecution of Mr. Simmons. He sent a third letter on Sept. 8, again smearing the “sham” AIP’s “illegal electoral purpose.”

Also on Sept. 8, Mr. Bauer complained to the Federal Election Commission about AIP and Mr. Simmons. He demanded that AIP turn over certain tax documents to his campaign (his right under IRS law), then sent a letter to AIP further hounding it for confidential information (to which he had no legal right).

The Bauer onslaught was a big part of a new liberal strategy to thwart the rise of conservative groups.

Strassel then goes on to document how the new liberal targeting strategy played out in the years prior to Citizens United.

And this history exposes the left’s hollow claim that the IRS mess rests on Citizens United. The left was targeting conservative groups and donors well before the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling on independent political expenditures by corporations.

If the country wants to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal, it must first remember the context for this abuse. That context leads to this White House.

That’s certainly part of the dirty war against conservatives.

But the dirty war also has included secondary boycotts of conservative speakers and groups organized by Media Matters, Color of Change and similar well-funded liberal entities. Those boycotts were not mere expressions of disagreement, but attempts to deprive conservatives of platforms on and through which to express speech, whether a radio show, a cable news station, or a 501(c)(4) organization.

None of these can be viewed in isolation. For 5 years we have endured wide-ranging attempts to suppress conservative political speech. The IRS scandal is just one part of it.

Update: A reader writes:

Note as well that Bob Bauer’s wife is the, ahem, interesting Anita Dunn.

.. A reporter is doing her or his job . Even though , normally , possession of certain material is a very big no – no (ie , illegal) . A reporter , especially one doing their job , is given a certain amount of latitude . It appears that the ObamaCrap Department of InJustice has really done it again .

.. James Rosen is a solid reporter . He is a long – time correspondent for FoxNewsChannel , covering State , Defence , and Intelligence issues . He is not someone who is known for stepping over a line . He has , to my knowledge , a very understated manner , but a very strong professional reputation . How anyone can think of him as the target of any kind of criminal investigation , I do not understand .

.. Well , guess what . Jimmy Rosen , it appears , is on the hot seat . Until now , in secret . The InJustice Department was conducting a criminal investigation , one that you would think would target someone in their own department . Well , no . They are going after the media . Again .

.. You think , after the AP imbroglio , they would have learned their lesson . Unfortunately , that appears not to be the case . InJustice is targeting Rosen , but not just him . They are going after another FoxSnooze producer , along with west – coast based correspondent William LaJeunesse . Why ?

.. It appears that they are really mad over getting badly burned on the botched ATF operation that was ” Fast and Furious . ” Well , they are pissed over part and parcel getting out . They are going after a high – profile target . Guess who ! James Rosen .

When the Justice Department began investigating possible leaks of classified information about North Korea in 2009, investigators did more than obtain telephone records of a working journalist suspected of receiving the secret material.

They used security badge access records to track the reporter’s comings and goings from the State Department, according to a newly obtained court affidavit. They traced the timing of his calls with a State Department security adviser suspected of sharing the classified report. They obtained a search warrant for the reporter’s personal e – mails.

The case of Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, the government adviser, and James Rosen, the chief Washington correspondent for Fox News, bears striking similarities to a sweeping leaks investigation disclosed last week in which federal investigators obtained records over two months of more than 20 telephone lines assigned to the Associated Press.

Obama last week defended the Justice Department’s handling of the investigation involving the AP, which is focused on who leaked information to the news organization about a foiled plot involving the al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen. AP executives and First Amendment watchdogs have criticized the Justice Department in part for the broad scope of the phone records it secretly subpoenaed from AP offices in Washington, Hartford , Conn., and New York.

“The latest events show an expansion of this law enforcement technique,” said attorney Abbe Lowell, who is defending Kim on federal charges filed in 2010 that he disclosed national defense information. A trial is possible as soon as 2014. “Individual reporters or small time periods have turned into 20 [telephone] lines and months of records with no obvious attempt to be targeted or narrow.”

The president said press freedoms must be balanced against the protection of U.S. personnel overseas. According to the office of Ronald Machen Jr., the U.S. attorney for the District, its prosecutors followed federal regulations by first seeking the information through other means before subpoenaing media phone records. Machen’s office is investigating both the Kim and AP cases. The Justice Department said in a statement that in both cases it had abided by “all applicable laws, regulations, and longstanding Department of Justice policies intended to safeguard the First Amendment interests of the press in reporting the news and the public in receiving it.”

” We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co – conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter . In fact , it is downright chilling . We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of [what up unitl now has always been a free press . ]”

.. One should remember , that it remains an open question whether it is ever illegal , for a reporter to solicit information. No reporter, including Rosen, has been prosecuted for doing so .

… In effect , this is criminalizing news reporting . Where the hell is the Department of InJustice going ? What are they doing ? What are they thinking ? …